American journal of preventive medicine · 2001
Report of two preventive medicine job market surveys.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nitzkin J L, Falcao P, Janusz N, Arraiano J
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP) conducted two surveys to explore the value of general preventive medicine/public health (GPM) training and board certification to physicians seeking GPM jobs.
METHODS: The first survey reviewed advertisements in recent issues of four medical journals. The second surveyed physician registrants at the Prevention 99 meeting.
RESULTS: The first survey screened about 18, 500 job advertisements. Of these, 1427 (7.7%) met the study's GPM screening criteria. Only 145 (10.6%) preferred an MPH, management, or related degree. Forty-one (2.9%) preferred a doctorate (MD/DO/PhD) and an MPH, management, or related degree. Only one (0. 07%) required or preferred GPM board certification. Results were consistent across market sectors (federal, state/local, academic, health care delivery) and across job roles (management, direct service, research, technical). The second survey gathered credential, job search, and employment data from 140 physician registrants at Prevention 99 (annual joint meeting of the American College of Preventive Medicine and the Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine in March 1999). Seventy-eight (55.7%) reported that GPM training was of major importance in securing their current employment. Only 18.5% of physicians holding GPM jobs secured their current employment by responding to an advertisement.
CONCLUSION: GPM board certification is of little or no value when competing for the vast majority of GPM-related jobs.
RECOMMENDATION: The AAPHP recommends prompt coordinated action by national organizations representing GPM physicians to increase the number of job offerings preferring or requiring physicians with GPM board certification. A six-point action plan is proposed.
METHODS: The first survey reviewed advertisements in recent issues of four medical journals. The second surveyed physician registrants at the Prevention 99 meeting.
RESULTS: The first survey screened about 18, 500 job advertisements. Of these, 1427 (7.7%) met the study's GPM screening criteria. Only 145 (10.6%) preferred an MPH, management, or related degree. Forty-one (2.9%) preferred a doctorate (MD/DO/PhD) and an MPH, management, or related degree. Only one (0. 07%) required or preferred GPM board certification. Results were consistent across market sectors (federal, state/local, academic, health care delivery) and across job roles (management, direct service, research, technical). The second survey gathered credential, job search, and employment data from 140 physician registrants at Prevention 99 (annual joint meeting of the American College of Preventive Medicine and the Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine in March 1999). Seventy-eight (55.7%) reported that GPM training was of major importance in securing their current employment. Only 18.5% of physicians holding GPM jobs secured their current employment by responding to an advertisement.
CONCLUSION: GPM board certification is of little or no value when competing for the vast majority of GPM-related jobs.
RECOMMENDATION: The AAPHP recommends prompt coordinated action by national organizations representing GPM physicians to increase the number of job offerings preferring or requiring physicians with GPM board certification. A six-point action plan is proposed.